LMA Supreme的安全性和有效性™ 与LMA ProSeal™ 用于成年患者的门诊手术

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Amanjot Singh, J. Kaur, S. Kaur, K. Gupta
{"title":"LMA Supreme的安全性和有效性™ 与LMA ProSeal™ 用于成年患者的门诊手术","authors":"Amanjot Singh, J. Kaur, S. Kaur, K. Gupta","doi":"10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background & objectives: The laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ (LMA-S) is a new, single-use, supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal™ and Fastrach™ airways. Till now, there have been conflicting results regarding the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of the LMA Supreme™ vs. the LMA ProSeal™, which is the major determinant of effective ventilation and airway protection during LMA use. We compared the safety and efficacy of the LMA ProSeal™ vs. the LMA Supreme™ in ambulatory surgeries. \nMethodology: In this prospective, comparative trial, eighty adult patients undergoing elective surgery, were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: Group LMA–P (LMA ProSeal™ group) and Group LMA–S (LMA Supreme™ group) of 40 patients each. OLP, insertion times, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 software using Student’s t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. \nResults: Oropharyngeal leak pressure in Group LMA–P (26.65 ± 1.59 cmH2O) was comparable to Group LMA–S (26.08 ± 1.67 cmH2O) and both provided adequate seal and effective ventilation. The mean effective airway time was significantly less in Group LMA–S as compared to Group LMA–P (14.80 ± 1.24 sec and 17.80 ± 1.47 sec) respectively. Mean number of successful insertion attempts, hemodynamic response and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were comparable in both the groups. \nConclusion: Both LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ are equally efficacious and safe for maintaining airway and ventilation in paralyzed patients. However, LMA Supreme™ is easier to insert with shorter effective airway time than LMA ProSeal™. \nAbbreviations: SAD - Supraglottic airway device; ETI - Endotracheal intubation; LMA - Laryngeal mask airways; PPV - Positive pressure ventilation; OLP - oropharyngeal leak pressure \nKey words: LMA ProSeal™, LMA Supreme™, Oropharyngeal leak pressure; Airway; Aieway management \nCitation: Singh A, Kaur J, Kaur S, Gupta KK. Safety and efficacy of LMA Supreme™ vs. LMA ProSeal™ for ambulatory surgeries in adult patients. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2021;26(1):63-68. \nDOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769 \nReceived: June 02, 2021, Reviewed: December 13, 2021, Accepted: December 15, 2021","PeriodicalId":7735,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and efficacy of LMA Supreme™ vs. LMA ProSeal™ for ambulatory surgeries in adult patients\",\"authors\":\"Amanjot Singh, J. Kaur, S. Kaur, K. Gupta\",\"doi\":\"10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background & objectives: The laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ (LMA-S) is a new, single-use, supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal™ and Fastrach™ airways. Till now, there have been conflicting results regarding the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of the LMA Supreme™ vs. the LMA ProSeal™, which is the major determinant of effective ventilation and airway protection during LMA use. We compared the safety and efficacy of the LMA ProSeal™ vs. the LMA Supreme™ in ambulatory surgeries. \\nMethodology: In this prospective, comparative trial, eighty adult patients undergoing elective surgery, were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: Group LMA–P (LMA ProSeal™ group) and Group LMA–S (LMA Supreme™ group) of 40 patients each. OLP, insertion times, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 software using Student’s t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. \\nResults: Oropharyngeal leak pressure in Group LMA–P (26.65 ± 1.59 cmH2O) was comparable to Group LMA–S (26.08 ± 1.67 cmH2O) and both provided adequate seal and effective ventilation. The mean effective airway time was significantly less in Group LMA–S as compared to Group LMA–P (14.80 ± 1.24 sec and 17.80 ± 1.47 sec) respectively. Mean number of successful insertion attempts, hemodynamic response and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were comparable in both the groups. \\nConclusion: Both LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ are equally efficacious and safe for maintaining airway and ventilation in paralyzed patients. However, LMA Supreme™ is easier to insert with shorter effective airway time than LMA ProSeal™. \\nAbbreviations: SAD - Supraglottic airway device; ETI - Endotracheal intubation; LMA - Laryngeal mask airways; PPV - Positive pressure ventilation; OLP - oropharyngeal leak pressure \\nKey words: LMA ProSeal™, LMA Supreme™, Oropharyngeal leak pressure; Airway; Aieway management \\nCitation: Singh A, Kaur J, Kaur S, Gupta KK. Safety and efficacy of LMA Supreme™ vs. LMA ProSeal™ for ambulatory surgeries in adult patients. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2021;26(1):63-68. \\nDOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769 \\nReceived: June 02, 2021, Reviewed: December 13, 2021, Accepted: December 15, 2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":7735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:喉罩气道Supreme™ (LMA-S)是一种新的一次性声门上设备,结合了ProSeal的功能™ 和Fastrach™ 气道。到目前为止,关于LMA Supreme的口咽漏压(OLP),一直存在相互矛盾的结果™ 与LMA ProSeal™, 这是LMA使用期间有效通气和气道保护的主要决定因素。我们比较了LMA ProSeal的安全性和有效性™ 与LMA Supreme™ 在门诊手术中。方法:在这项前瞻性比较试验中,80名接受选择性手术的成年患者被随机分配到两组中的一组:LMA-P组(LMA-ProSeal™ 组)和LMA-S组(LMA-Supreme™ 每组40名患者。评估OLP、插入次数、插入尝试次数、插入容易程度和咽喉发病率。使用SPSS 21.0版软件进行统计分析,采用Student t检验和卡方检验。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:LMA-P组的口咽漏压(26.65±1.59 cmH2O)与LMA-S组(26.08±1.67 cmH2O)相当,两者都提供了充分的密封和有效的通气。与LMA-P组相比,LMA-S组的平均有效气道时间显著缩短(分别为14.80±1.24秒和17.80±1.47秒)。两组的平均成功插入次数、血液动力学反应和咽喉发病率具有可比性。结论:两种LMA Supreme™ 和LMA ProSeal™ 对于维持瘫痪患者的气道和通气同样有效和安全。然而,LMA Supreme™ 比LMA ProSeal更容易插入,有效气道时间更短™. 缩写:SAD——声门上气道装置;ETI——气管插管;LMA——喉罩气道;PPV——正压通气;OLP-口咽漏压关键词:LMA ProSeal™, 一次性双管喉罩™, 口咽漏压;气道;Aieway管理引文:Singh A,Kaur J,Kaur S,Gupta KK。LMA Supreme的安全性和有效性™ 与LMA ProSeal™ 用于成人患者的门诊手术。Anaesth。疼痛重症监护2021;26(1):63-68。DOI:10.35975/apic.v26i1.769收到日期:2021年6月2日,审核日期:2021月13日,接受日期:2021 12月15日
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and efficacy of LMA Supreme™ vs. LMA ProSeal™ for ambulatory surgeries in adult patients
Background & objectives: The laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ (LMA-S) is a new, single-use, supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal™ and Fastrach™ airways. Till now, there have been conflicting results regarding the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of the LMA Supreme™ vs. the LMA ProSeal™, which is the major determinant of effective ventilation and airway protection during LMA use. We compared the safety and efficacy of the LMA ProSeal™ vs. the LMA Supreme™ in ambulatory surgeries. Methodology: In this prospective, comparative trial, eighty adult patients undergoing elective surgery, were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: Group LMA–P (LMA ProSeal™ group) and Group LMA–S (LMA Supreme™ group) of 40 patients each. OLP, insertion times, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 software using Student’s t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Oropharyngeal leak pressure in Group LMA–P (26.65 ± 1.59 cmH2O) was comparable to Group LMA–S (26.08 ± 1.67 cmH2O) and both provided adequate seal and effective ventilation. The mean effective airway time was significantly less in Group LMA–S as compared to Group LMA–P (14.80 ± 1.24 sec and 17.80 ± 1.47 sec) respectively. Mean number of successful insertion attempts, hemodynamic response and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Both LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ are equally efficacious and safe for maintaining airway and ventilation in paralyzed patients. However, LMA Supreme™ is easier to insert with shorter effective airway time than LMA ProSeal™. Abbreviations: SAD - Supraglottic airway device; ETI - Endotracheal intubation; LMA - Laryngeal mask airways; PPV - Positive pressure ventilation; OLP - oropharyngeal leak pressure Key words: LMA ProSeal™, LMA Supreme™, Oropharyngeal leak pressure; Airway; Aieway management Citation: Singh A, Kaur J, Kaur S, Gupta KK. Safety and efficacy of LMA Supreme™ vs. LMA ProSeal™ for ambulatory surgeries in adult patients. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2021;26(1):63-68. DOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i1.1769 Received: June 02, 2021, Reviewed: December 13, 2021, Accepted: December 15, 2021
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信